I refer the honorable gent to my original reply

http://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/703197.htm

You and Dissident are correct in saying I added the child abuse bit, notice it was in brackets. That is my way of underlining how the term paedophilia is universally perceived now - as shorthand for child abuse. I am saying it is pointless talking about whether that is fair or not. The term paedophile is a lost cause in the real world as far as I am concerned, and connotes child abuse. I've written this already. Toxic.

I did "offer" alternative terminology, ie; the one I am comfortable with; girllove. But even at that, it is personal to me, not a statement of unqualified agreement with the child liberation agenda as it is.

It just means something fun and nice to me. Not stodgy. Yes girls are nice, But I don't talk with my cock... cos I haven't got one Dante (plumbing checked) since you sort of enquired.. and just one look at Tom O'Carroll's site confirms Furedi is right on the self-serving element. Dripping with Cockology.

And btw, Tom O'Carroll did claim in his reply to me that he was convinced that Michael Jackson had sex with minors. I haven't researched all that melodrama as thoroughly as he has. But remember the trial well, and as far as I am concerned those boys where a bunch of gold-digging lying little bastards on the make, and totally exploited Michael Jackson's vulnerability, and his child-like and generous nature. Yes, In my view Jackson was a child-lover, but not a child molester. And in my view Lewis Carroll was a girl-lover. You know, it's one thing to say, "the forms of little girls are so lovely one wonders why they should ever be covered up", and to do nude and clothed art and photography in dedication of little girls.. it's quite another thing to coerce a child for the purposes of sexual gratification. (and I am not saying that you or Dissident o0r GC advocates the latter).